How Far Up The Ladder Does Knowledge Of Sasquatch Go?

[Huntster]

9 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

.......The only DNA main stream science is going to believe is that collected from a BF on a lab table that has been collected with accepted protocols and verified with testing in more than one lab.   

 

I can accept that rigid redundancy (ridiculous, when one really considers it) when it come to the religious tenets of the priests of Scientism, but it seems a bit excessive to the Average Joe who considers the justification for a bit more seriousness on the part of our natural resource managers.

[hiflier]

Regarding the last four posts, believe me when I say that all of your points and arguments hold great weight. I has been difficult to say the least digging into what I'm trying to say. I find it nearly impossible to think that EVERY supposed BF DNA sample has been contaminated by Humans to the extent that all anyone finds, such as in the OP nesting cores, is either Human or bear. This doesn't not fit with the Human nest building aspect, bear DNA especially, without some use of cutting tools. Humans do not urinate on, or sleep naked on, huge twig nests that were reportedly made by breaking off thousands of twigs. And yet the soil samples from under the center of the nests say Human. And yep, bears were there too. No elk and no deer but just about everything else including rocks with score marks on them in or around the nest on point.

 

EVERYTHING always comes back Human and bear. Except the hair morphology which is distinct between the two. And yet even the hair is different- close to Human but not Human. DNA? Forever Human. Tissue samples? Largely Bear.  Look, I cannot profess to know how such a creature could get where it is evolution-wise. I'm not that good LOL. But when the evidence over so much time and through so much testing by expert geneticists in so many labs keeps coming back the same? There HAS to be something to it. A bipedal something or other that has evolved, and it doesn't matter if the bipedalism was first to develop or the last thing to develop, but somewhere, somehow, there was what seems like arrested development of an animal on it way to becoming a primate. It got far enough to evolve bipedally but was for all intents and purposes a bear. It also evolved it's own hair type which is similar to though not Human.

 

I don't profess to know what DNA mixture would cause such a creature or what kind of environmental forcing beyond glaciation and cosmic ray mutation could result in such a creature. I only know that everything I've looked at, researched and studied points to the conclusion that it happened. And whatever happened happened a long, long time ago. As far as speculation? Homo Naledi could have been an ancestor since it is it's own species as well: Human feet with long apelike arms and hands evolved for climbing. It happens folks. Sasquatch wouldn't be too far fetched IMHO.

Edited January 31, 2019 by hiflier

[Old Time Lifter]

You simply cannot have a creature that is a mixture of bear and primate DNA.  That is vastly less believable than the idea that a primitive human is running around in the wild.  Less believable to the tune of 1 followed by uncountable zeros tbh!

 

It just isn't an option!!!  The two can share more primitive DNA but any DNA that identifies them as either primate or family Ursidae (North American Bears) just can't happen... bears and primates cannot mate and have a viable offspring, not in the present, not in the future, not in the distant past... it can't happen.  To try and imply that it's the only answer or even a potential answer is wrong... it's NOT AN OPTION.  Unless you're going to go with genetic manipulation by aliens or some mad crazy human scientist ala Dr. Moreau... and I personally am not going to consider those as options either...

 

Genetics isn't magic, there are rules to be followed by everything in nature.

 

 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

When will you folks wake up.

 

When it becomes biologically possible.   That would be a good starting point.   

 

40 minutes ago, hiflier said:

EVERYTHING always comes back Human and bear.

 

I suggest you need to fact-check that.   It is false.

 

MIB

Edited January 31, 2019 by MIB

[Catmandoo]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

Maybe that's why Sasquatch is being kept under wraps? Because testing the creatures as organ donors has been underway and the controversy and fallout would be explosive. 

 

Organ donors? Seems like a bit of a stretch.  I would think that only one organ would be considered for transplant. And what ever you do, do not use the Abi Normal one..............Eeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhh.

[Old Time Lifter]

6 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

 

Organ donors? Seems like a bit of a stretch.  I would think that only one organ would be considered for transplant. And what ever you do, do not use the Abi Normal one..............Eeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhh.

 

 

[Catmandoo]

^^^^^ I am a huge Mel Brooks fan.  Mel Brooks and associates have lived in houses that farts built.  He is still alive. A Master.

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Catmandoo said:

^^^^^ I am a huge Mel Brooks fan.  Mel Brooks and associates have lived in houses that farts built.  He is still alive. A Master.

I offer you a laurel, and hearty handshake, Sir.

[NatFoot]

So....this just popped into my mind.

 

Special Forces have to have some sort of proof of BF. They're in the most remote areas of the world, train in BF territory with some of the most advanced equipment in the world.

 

If there wasn't a hush order on BF, these folks would talk about this stuff post service. Can't talk about shooting Osama, but a BF story at the bar should be fair game if they've never been told not to divulge it.

[Old Time Lifter]

22 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

So....this just popped into my mind.

 

Special Forces have to have some sort of proof of BF. They're in the most remote areas of the world, train in BF territory with some of the most advanced equipment in the world.

 

If there wasn't a hush order on BF, these folks would talk about this stuff post service. Can't talk about shooting Osama, but a BF story at the bar should be fair game if they've never been told not to divulge it.

 

Back in the old days, there was a member here who claimed a sighting while training in the service.  He died when hit by a car as he was leaving a concert if I remember correctly.  Though he and I bunted heads here on the forum I sent a card and some funds to his widow.  I don't remember his user name though?

 

He claimed if I remember correctly to have seen it tear down a tree with one hand, that was the reason I didn't believe him and why we cracked skulls.  I forget the size of the tree but it was large enough that I and many others just didn't buy it being possible, the laws of physics are hard to break.

 

Anyways, there are stories out there from ex-military folks.

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

You simply cannot have a creature that is a mixture of bear and primate DNA.  That is vastly less believable than the idea that a primitive human is running around in the wild.  Less believable to the tune of 1 followed by uncountable zeros tbh!

 

And I agree with that but 85 million years ago the evolutionary line had a common ancestor that split. One branch eventually led to Humans and the other eventually to bears.

 

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

There HAS to be something to it. A bipedal something or other that has evolved, and it doesn't matter if the bipedalism was first to develop or the last thing to develop, but somewhere, somehow, there was what seems like arrested development of an animal on it way to becoming a primate. It got far enough to evolve bipedally but was for all intents and purposes a bear. It also evolved it's own hair type which is similar to though not Human.

 

I don't profess to know what DNA mixture would cause such a creature or what kind of environmental forcing beyond glaciation and cosmic ray mutation could result in such a creature. I only know that everything I've looked at, researched and studied points to the conclusion that it happened. And whatever happened happened a long, long time ago. 

 

My proposal is that there wasn't just two branches 85 million years ago, there was three. The third retained the genetics of the common ancestor. Hey, this is a wild idea, it always has been, but what it did was cause me to dig in to see how something as seemingly impossible as this could have occurred. I needed answers to the question of how did Humans become Humans, apes become apes, bears become bears and Sasquatches become Sasquatches and don't think it has been an easy road because it hasn't been. Anyone that thinks I'm trying to cross a bear with a Human isn't getting it. Bears and Humans NEVER crossed paths. This isn't some kind of hybrid and so please try to get that thought out of your minds. It certainly isn't in mine! How many time have I said Sasquatch is a species wholly unto itself? There IS NO Human/Bear crossbreeding going on and I'm not promoting such a thing. I am saying that the reason Sasquatch seems to have elements of both is because it has ALWAYS had elements of both. It is its nature.

 

And for the record the evolutionary split wouldn't have gone down as a 50/50 split. It may have been more like 99/1 with 99 being the part that went on to primate Homo form and eventually bipedalism. The 1% would have kept it squarely in the animal kingdom as a creature that was incapable of technological advances, imagination and so would remain forever primitive. Bear-like in it mentality if you will. And that's all I have ever said on the matter. Dig back and you will see that. I have always said a bear's mind in a primate body. The 1% that shows up in DNA as bear. The Homo/Human aspects of course always get tossed as being contaminated DNA samples. Different geneticists, different labs,  and consistently the same outcome. "How can that be" led me to this conclusion a couple of years back and I've seen nothing that has been offered that has changed things. Sasquatch is old. Older than us and older than apes and probably way older that the Human/Ape common ancestor. And hey, at least I'm not promoting a 10 million year old jump through a portal.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/dna.php

 

http://www.onezoom.org/life.html/@cellular_organisms=93302#x218,y568,w0.9922

Edited February 1, 2019 by hiflier

[MIB]

Ah, the Dunning-Kruger Effect.   Nice demo!   Thanks!    

 

MIB

[norseman]

 

 

 

 

[Old Time Lifter]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

And I agree with that but 85 million years ago the evolutionary line had a common ancestor that split. One branch eventually led to Humans and the other eventually to bears.

 

 

My proposal is that there wasn't just two branches 85 million years ago, there was three. The third retained the genetics of the common ancestor. Hey, this is a wild idea, it always has been, but what it did was cause me to dig in to see how something as seemingly impossible as this could have occurred. I needed answers to the question of how did Humans become Humans, apes become apes, bears become bears and Sasquatches become Sasquatches and don't think it has been an easy road because it hasn't been. Anyone that thinks I'm trying to cross a bear with a Human isn't getting it. Bears and Humans NEVER crossed paths. This isn't some kind of hybrid and so please try to get that thought out of your minds. It certainly isn't in mine! How many time have I said Sasquatch is a species wholly unto itself? There IS NO Human/Bear crossbreeding going on and I'm not promoting such a thing. I am saying that the reason Sasquatch seems to have elements of both is because it has ALWAYS had elements of both. It is its nature.

 

And for the record the evolutionary split wouldn't have gone down as a 50/50 split. It may have been more like 99/1 with 99 being the part that went on to primate Homo form and eventually bipedalism. The 1% would have kept it squarely in the animal kingdom as a creature that was incapable of technological advances, imagination and so would remain forever primitive. Bear-like in it mentality if you will. And that's all I have ever said on the matter. Dig back and you will see that. I have always said a bear's mind in a primate body. The 1% that shows up in DNA as bear. The Homo/Human aspects of course always get tossed as being contaminated DNA samples. Different geneticists, different labs,  and consistently the same outcome. "How can that be" led me to this conclusion a couple of years back and I've seen nothing that has been offered that has changed things. Sasquatch is old. Older than us and older than apes and probably way older that the Human/Ape common ancestor. And hey, at least I'm not promoting a 10 million year old jump through a portal.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/dna.php

 

http://www.onezoom.org/life.html/@cellular_organisms=93302#x218,y568,w0.9922

7

 

Well except that those genetic markers that identify bears as bears and primates as primates hadn't evolved yet back then (prior to the split I mean, once they split those traits developed, those common ancient traits aren't looked at as identification of a species... you do share genes with bacteria just so you know... smh) .... please stop... 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Old Time Lifter

[JKH]

On January 28, 2019 at 4:03 PM, cmknight said:

 

I took a look at his "work" a few years ago, and was not too impressed. As far as I'm concerned, there was no need whatsoever for him to "invent" a new phonetic alphabet for Sasquatch, since every sound can be made with the current International Phonetic Alphabet. There are no new sounds that need a new written phonemic representation. He just re-invented the wheel. As for no direct correlation to other modern human languages, |I played the Sierra sounds tapes (the part where Morehead tries to interact, repeating what the creatures were saying) for my students in China, and they instantly recognized the speech as a very fast version of Northeast Mandarin dialect (specific to Jilin and Liaoning provinces), asking "What are you doing?" and "Do you want to fight?". BTW, when I played it for them, I did NOT tell them beforehand, what it was. I also played it for my wife (she is Chinese) under the same circumstances ... no prior information to what was in the recording. She came up with the exact same answers as my students. 

 

I did this experiment before I had even heard of Nelson. I had read that one theory of migration had to do with crossing the Bering Land Bridge, so I figured that if this was to have merit of any kind, there "should" be some similarity at least, in language. The mongoloid race goes back thousands of years, and the language has stayed relatively constant, with very few changes, throughout the millenia. Some of the First Nations people also continue to exhibit some of the Mongoloid facial features, as well, so it wasn't not too hard for me to extrapolate that perhaps Sasquatch and the First Nations migrated here relatively close together in time, give or take a thousand years or so, and spread themselves out over this continent, with First Nations progressing and adapting to their new environments, and Sasquatch staying primitive, and using the land to hide and keep away from others (were they the hunted, perhaps?).

 

I feel there is some merit to Nelson stating that Sasquatch language is similar to some Asian languages, especially if the Bering land bridge theory is true, however, I believe that it may have developed even further from there to be more region specific. For example, New York Sasquatch language could have developed differently from, say, Skunk Ape, or Pacific Sasquatch language (or dialect).

 

Anyhow, I'm kinda getting into a totally different topic here, so I'll shut up now ...

 

Very interesting, thanks! 

I don't get the argument that "people need to know!" Especially from the G, come on now. JMO